On April 22, 2025, the conflict between Pakistan and India heated up again after a shooting in Kashmir that killed at least 25 Indian citizens and 1 Nepalese citizen. The incident marked the deadliest terrorist attack in India since the Mumbai attacks in 2008. The Indian state accused Pakistan of hiding the group responsible for the attack and arrested two Pakistani nationals as suspects. However, Pakistan said the shooting was a “false flag operation” designed to discredit Islamabad and deny the allegations. In other words, Pakistan considers the allegations unreasonable because they are not accompanied by credible evidence.
Since the incident, the response given by the two countries has made their relationship deteriorate. The two countries have suspended special South Asian visas, expelled defense advisers, closed land borders, and reduced embassy staff. In addition, India also suspended the Indus River water-sharing agreement, to which Pakistan responded with a threat that any attempt to divert water would be considered an act of war. Pakistan also closed its airspace to Indian flights and halted all bilateral trade agreements. As well as shooting down Indian drones used for “espionage” in the Kashmir region. Tensions have also heated up along the de facto border, the Line of Control, in Kashmir, and gunfights have taken place along the disputed border for seven consecutive nights.
This increased tension attracted sympathy from various countries, one of which was the United States. US Vice President J.D. Vance hoped Pakistan would help hunt down the militants behind the attacks based on its territory and urged India to exercise restraint so that the conflict does not lead to a war between the two nuclear-armed countries. In addition, through the US State Department, it also said that Washington had contacted the governments of Pakistan and India. Where US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has contacted Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. To ask these two countries not to worsen the situation that has occurred. As well as urging them to work together towards what he called a ‘responsible solution’ to this conflict. The US government also gave support to India and strongly condemned the terrorist attacks, although it did not explicitly criticize Pakistan. The US supports India as an important partner as well as measures against China’s growing influence in the region. On the other hand, Pakistan also remains a US ally, but its importance diminished after the withdrawal of US troops from neighboring Afghanistan in 2021.
However, the statement of ‘responsible solutions’ raises the question of the extent to which the US is really committed to helping resolve the conflict or just diplomatic rhetoric. Diplomatic rhetoric is the attempt of a country’s leaders and diplomats to influence global public opinion, build legitimacy, and manage change. In other words, diplomatic rhetoric involves persuasive messages designed to strengthen national positions and interests in a convincing way, such as rallying international support or also defusing conflicts that occur without always being accompanied by concrete action.
Judging by the actions taken by the US, such as contacting the two countries, condemning the attack, and providing support to India is just a symbolic response that leads to diplomatic rhetoric. Because until now the US has not shown more committed steps. The reason is that the US President, Donald Trump himself, considers that this conflict will eventually subside on its own without involving interference from outside parties. Trump also chose not to play a mediator role in the conflict and insisted the two countries could resolve the issue at hand, although tensions continued after the incident. This was also reinforced by the statement of Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif, who said that so far the US seems to be moving away from intervening in the matter. In addition, with various global agendas that have captured the attention of the US, such as the Gaza conflict, the Ukraine conflict, and its trade war with China. Therefore, the US seems to prefer to call for dialogue, passive mediation, and de-escalation of tensions in the absence of any intervention measures in it.
Overall, the US statement of a ‘responsible solution’ to the Kashmir conflict is more appropriately seen as a strategy of public diplomacy than a real commitment to conflict resolution. This call only provides a normative aspect of the US by affirming its rejection of violence, emphasizing moral support for India, and emphasizing the importance of dialogue to defuse tensions. However, until now there has been no specific mediation initiative or any real emphasis on the two sides sitting together at the negotiating table. The U.S. focus remains on regional stability and long-term geopolitical interests, so the magnitude of the U.S. practical commitment to a peaceful settlement of Kashmir remains to be tested. And only time will tell whether the position will evolve into a more proactive policy or just a mere normative statement.
